Ah, I see where you’re coming from with your analogy.
My problem is not choosing to a eat a bologna sandwich. I was willing to eat it in 2008, only to be pleasantly surprised when the bologna man added Alaskan moose steak (one of my favorites as a hunter) to the menu.
No, my problem is that the man offering me a bologna sandwich in 2012 is the same individual who stomped on my bologna-and-steak sandwich in 2008 (after the bologna man added Alaskan moose steak to the sandwich) and gave me marxist manure one instead.
For this reason, I think I’ll pass on the deli this time around and try the tea shop down the road.
As I stated earlier, Romney was not on my list. I didn't vote for him in the primary, and I'm not at all delusional that he is a conservative.
That said, we don't have a parliamentary system. In our system, everyone except the winner is a loser. Getting 5 non-Marxist candidates, each getting 15% of the vote makes us a loser every day of the week, and the Marxist wins.
My friend, I do feel your frustration and your anger. I share it, but this is a war we are in and this just one of the battles on its field.
Was Romney a great choice? Neither of us think so. Will he be "The One" that will turn everything around? No. But we are Constitutionalists and we don't rely on "The One". Such political concepts do not become us or our ideas. What I believe you seek, as do I, is the end of the imperial presidency, and a return to Constitutional government.
Looking at history, we fell off the path 100 years ago and have moved ever farther from it since, all down hill. The journey back to the ridge-line isn't going to quick or easy.
We have to take power away from the Federal government. Push the most conservative candidate you can in the primaries, and then pick the best of the bad choices in the general (if you must). Voting for Romney doesn't make Romney "my man", it makes me pragmatic.
What do I see pragmatic in that vote:
1. The larger the margin of victory for Romney, the larger Republican gains are likely to be in the House and Senate, and that is where real power resides (we need 60 conservative Senators to even start moving up the path).
2. We are bankrupt and the economy is more likely to implode than not in the next 4 years. I do NOT want a Marxist at the helm.
3. #2 is inevitable. Bankruptcy is a powerful tool for fiscal discipline, which is also a primary mover for restricted government. Obama will open the bilge cocks on the ship, before changing its course.
No one is asking you to like Romney, just to play the cards you've been dealt the best way possible. The outcome of Romney losing because a 3rd party conservative got 1-5% of the vote will not be massive epiphany by Country Club Republicans that they must back a conservative next time. They will just move farther to the Left.
I suggest channeling energy into long term tactics for changing the Zeitgeist of American political thought. Put money and energy into conservative causes that get our message out. Bad things are coming, and people are going to be receptive to change. We need to be ready to educate them when and however possible. Short term, I beseech you to make the best of bad options. I would point you to Churchill's position on Stalin's Russia after 1941.
There can be a point made for allowing Obama to win, so that he can reap the coming firestorm, but I don't think that is wise. History has shown that a socialist minded people do not suddenly become capitalist purveyors of freedom when confronted with collapse. With the media acting as Obama's propaganda network, I think that a majority (or enough) of the American populace is far more likely to back a move to nationalization and total government control. Think this strategy out long and hard, if it is what you have in mind.